Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail

Well, I finished Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, which focuses on why many evangelicals are drawn toward Anglicanism. I’m glad I read it. It is one of the more well-known 20th Century books on Anglicanism and deservedly so. It’s not without its faults, but we’ll get into that later.

First, some of the many positives. The book is perceptive in going through a variety of reasons evangelicals might be drawn to a liturgical church. One reason is a longing for the experience of worship. Speaking of his own experience, the author, Dr. Robert Webber, writes, “Something within me was pushing me toward an experience of worship . . . that was different than the plate being served in the [evangelical] churches where I had been involved.� I can say the same thing.

He writes that evangelical worship is often too man-centered, especially too centered around the pastor and his sermon. And he’s correct.

Webber expresses his and many evangelicals’ yearning to be a part of the whole church. He criticizes the tendency toward division and excessive separation among some evangelical churches. He appreciates the diversity within unity in Anglicanism. (And I do, too . . . to a point, as you’ll see.) One reason he likes the Book of Common Prayer and the church calendar is it brings about not just individualistic or local worship, it brings about Christians worldwide worshiping together.

Going further, Webber expresses a desire to be connected with saints through the ages. For “our family tree begins not with the Reformation or the twentieth-century evangelical movement but with Jesus Christ, and it continues though the Apostles, the primitive Christian community, the Apostolic Fathers . . . and all who say ‘Jesus is Lord.’� I agree and desire that connection as well.

These are just some ways in which Webber very well captures, largely by discussing his own experience, why evangelicals might be attracted to Anglicanism. Much of the book is also given to the experiences of other evangelicals who have become Anglican.

But Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail at times reads like low-key recruitment to the Episcopal Church USA. (Webber writes mainly in the context of evangelicals attracted to the ECUSA.) And in so doing, it treads too lightly on very real problems most evangelicals would have in considering the Episcopal Church, especially its liberalism. Now I’m going to harp on this a little bit, but bear with me.

I freely grant that the book was written in 1985, when the liberalism of the Episcopal Church was not as obvious as today. Still, even I, who didn’t know much about the ECUSA back in the 80’s, knew enough to know that it was liberal to a large extent.

When Webber does address this issue, his view is unrealistically optimistic. This paragraph stands out:

In recent years many evangelicals have acknowledged that a significant shift away from a liberal theology toward apostolic Christianity has been occurring within the halls of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches.

Huh? Now I did follow the World and National Council of Churches closely in the early 80’s (much to the consternation of some of my fellow Presbyterians). And I saw no such shift, nor read of any evangelical perceiving any such shift. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any such evangelicals, but if there were, they were surely engaging in wishful thinking. For these councils were too busy being useful idiots for the Communist cause and other leftisms to shift in any way toward orthodoxy.

Webber engages in additional wishful thinking himself when he writes:

In the Episcopal church I find a healthy sense of unity and diversity. In this tradition we recognize that that which holds the church together is more important than that which divides the church.

This is something ++Griswold could write. But to be fair, yes, unity and diversity is a hallmark of Anglicanism and is a Biblical and attractive trait for a church to have when it does not go beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. But for an Evangelical professor to write this about the ECUSA while it was at the very least well on its way to apostasy (which by its very nature is divisive) is missing the mark. Granted, orthodox Anglicanism has this healthy sense of unity and diversity. But the Episcopal Church USA?

Guessing why Webber’s book has this blind spot would be pure speculation on my part. Maybe Webber was so attracted to the Episcopal Church that deep inside he just didn’t want to see how badly its foundations had eroded – not unlike someone who so falls in love with a house that he doesn’t see that it’s falling apart. I can understand that. At this point, I find myself so attracted to Anglicanism that, if I couldn’t find a good Anglican church for me where I’m moving, I would be sorely let down.

But in 1985 even this casual observer saw there was a serious problem. Now most evangelicals see the same. To his credit, so does Dr. Webber. I contacted him and he has graciously swapped e-mails with me. Although he makes a point of not demeaning evangelicals who stay in the ECUSA, he feels there is now a new “litmus test� of being a good Episcopalian – affirmation of gay relationships. He feels that the Episcopal Church “will become an increasingly uncomfortable place for those who disagree . . . .�

If you cross out “Episcopal� in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail and replace it with “orthodox Anglican,� then it is a helpful and perceptive book that captures well why there are evangelical WannabeAnglicans in the world. But not dealing adequately with the liberalism of the Episcopal Church USA and issues evangelicals might have with that liberalism, even back in the 80’s, is a significant shortcoming in any book on evangelical attitudes toward Episcopalianism.

Still, if one takes into account that shortcoming, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail is a perceptive book I recommend if you want to get a good grip on the attractiveness of Anglicanism to evangelicals. It even helped me understand why I’m a WannabeAnglican.